Appellate Tribunal allows Revenue's appeal on Titanium Dioxide value dispute

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, allowed the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the enhancement of value of Titanium Dioxide B101 Anatase imported by the respondents. The Tribunal considered contemporaneous imports and referenced a previous Supreme Court decision, leading to the decision to set aside the Commissioner's order and allow the Revenue's appeal. The cross-objection by the importer was dismissed as mere comments on the Revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the enhancement of value of Titanium Dioxide B101 Anatase imported by the respondents in September 2001.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI, consisting of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President, and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T), heard the appeal by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The declared value by the assessees was US$ 825, equivalent to Rs. 39,454.38. The Department rejected this value based on the contemporaneous import of identical goods from China in November 2001 by M/s. Berger Paints. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the import of identical goods from the same supplier in January 2002 by M/s. Pure Trading Asia Ltd., Karaikal. The Tribunal found that the import by M/s. Berger Paints could be considered contemporaneous as it occurred just about two months after the import by M/s. Kiran Pondy Chem. Ltd. The Tribunal referenced a recent decision by the Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Ratanlal v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, which stated that contemporaneous imports can be used to enhance the value of imports.

The Tribunal, after considering the above discussion, set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal of the Revenue. Additionally, the cross-objection filed by the importer was dismissed as it was deemed to be only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the appeal of the Revenue. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in an open court setting.

---